What metrics do you use for Maintenance Planning and Scheduling? Check out the metrics in this maturity matrix and see how they compare. This is Maturity Matrix 1 of 2 for Maintenance Planning and Scheduling.

1. Elements LEVEL 1
NOT ENGAGED
LEVEL 2
EXPERIMENTING
LEVEL 3
ENLIGHTENED
LEVEL 4
GOOD PRACTICE
LEVEL 5
BEST PRACTICE
Outage Organization
No formal outage
organization defined.
Decisions regarding the
outage are made by
individuals, independent of
the big picture.
Outage leader implied
by job title, but authority
and centralization of
communication and
leadership not recognized.
Still a high degree of
individual decision making
with no coordination to the
big picture.
Outage leadership role
defined with responsibility for
communication and decision
making. Organization not
further defined. Leader tied
to high number of decisions,
resulting in slow progress
and independent decision
making with no coordination
to the big picture.
Formal outage organization
with responsibilities
defined for areas such as
materials management,
safety, mobile equipment,
contractor interface, and
overall outage leadership.
Team still challenged with
communication gaps,
delaying decisions and
progress.
Fully integrated outage
organization with specific
roles and responsibilities
defined. Clear evidence
that this team works in a
cooperative manner and
adheres to the process.
Communication and decision
making is largely seamless.
Single Outage Plan
Outage plan not formal or
published. Groups work off
of informal lists. Multiple
plans for the outage exist
(maintenance, engineering,
operations, etc.).
Single outage plan
developed, but the quality of
the plan is severely lacking.
Plan consists largely of
simple work lists developed
with spotty job plans.
Knowledge of plan resides
largely with maintenance
leaders.
Single outage plan
developed cooperatively
with input and oversight from
all affected disciplines. No
critical path identified. All jobs
are considered equal; no
consistent view on priorities.
Level III + Critical path job
for the outage identified and
lower priority jobs arranged
around it. Higher degree of
understanding across the
organization.
Level of detail on the plan
to support an hour-by-
hour breakdown. Plan
is communicated clearly
across the organization
and universally understood.
Scheduling conflicts between
tasks is extremely rare.
Risk Analysis
Performed
No risk analysis performed.
Rudimentary risk analysis
performed. Some jobs are
identified to be “watched
more closely”.
Formal risk analysis
performed, but largely
subjective. Level of detail
does not drill down to specific
recovery or avoidance
actions to be taken. Largely a
prioritization exercise based
on risk; little or no action
taken from analysis results.
Level III + Specific factors
for critical jobs defined.
Organization still struggles
with execution of avoidance
and recovery actions.
Emergencies occur and
focus is on quick recovery.
Level IV + Both recovery
and avoidance activities
identified and personnel
responsibilities assigned
for most critical jobs.
Emergencies still occur,
but they are rare and
organization is well prepared
for them.
Outage Process
No formal process for
outage planning; resources
allocated as “just-in-time”
immediately prior to outage.
Greatly diminished outage
performance.
An outage process and
cut-off dates have been
established, but cut-off
dates are not enforced.
Outage performance is poor;
organization struggles to
recover from outages.
Formal outage process
established and routinely
adhered to, covering only
critical elements of the
outage planning process
- Identification, Prepare,
and Execute. Process only
includes those directly
impacted.
Level III + Check Readiness
and Review processes
incorporated. Process
includes total organization
involvement.
Level IV + Heavy reliance
on the review element with
lessons learned integrated
into future outages.
Measurable and quantifiable
improvements to outage
performance over time.
Work Requests
Work Requests are not used;
work reporting is extremely
informal (verbal).
Work is requested informally
in most cases. A formal
system for reporting work
exists, but it is overlooked
and people prefer to use the
phone or make face-to-face
requests.
All requested work is
reported via some formal
system, but only certain
individuals have access
to these systems. Delays
in requesting work occur.
Limited feedback to the
requestor.
Individuals report all
requested work within the
same shift as the problem is
noted, but multiple systems
for reporting work may still
exist. Some consolidation
issues prevail.
Every individual is able to
use a single system for
reporting work with detailed
information and reports work
when problem is noted.
Feedback to requestor is
ensured.
Work Order
Prioritization
Production areas receive
attention based on loudest
complaints. Priorities are
constantly shifting.
Work Orders are managed
by the planner or
maintenance supervisor
based on production input.
No consistent method
applied.
Formal system documented,
but not consistently applied.
Maintenance leader
determines priorities.
Work Orders prioritized by
either asset criticality, defect
severity, or Work Order type.
Formal system documented
and followed most of the
time.
Work Orders prioritized
by asset criticality, defect
severity, and Work Order
type simultaneously.
Formal documented system
consistently applied.
Continued on back...
LEVEL 1
NOT ENGAGED
LEVEL 1
NOT ENGAGED
LEVEL 2
EXPERIMENTING
LEVEL 2
EXPERIMENTING
LEVEL 4
GOOD PRACTICE
LEVEL 4
GOOD PRACTICE
LEVEL 5
BEST PRACTICE
LEVEL 5
BEST PRACTICE
WORKCONTROLWORKCONTROL Ways to Measure Your
Planning and Scheduling, 2
Maturity Matrix
North America • Europe • Latin America • Middle East • Asia-Pacific
GPAllied EMEA
Guldensporenpark 21-Blok C
B-9820 Merelbeke, Belgium
o. +32(0)9.210.17.20
f. +32(0)9.210.17.28
www.gpallied.com
World Headquarters
4200 Faber Place Drive
Charleston, SC 29405
o. 888.335.8276
f. 843.414.5779

2. Elements LEVEL 1
NOT ENGAGED
LEVEL 2
EXPERIMENTING
LEVEL 3
ENLIGHTENED
LEVEL 4
GOOD PRACTICE
LEVEL 5
BEST PRACTICE
Work Order Usage
Work Orders rarely or never
used.
Individual Work Orders are
rarely issued. Blanket Work
Orders are commonplace.
Individual Work Orders are
used for proactive work.
Reactive work is covered
under blanket Work Orders.
All proactive and reactive
jobs have individual Work
Orders. Repairs/follow-up
work performed under parent
Work Order or PM Work
Order.
All proactive and reactive
jobs have individual Work
Orders. Scope creep and
additional work receive a
separate follow-up Work
Order.
Work Order Status
Work Order Status not in
use; all Work Orders entered
as the same status.
Excessive number of
statuses used. No one pays
attention to Work Order
Status and statuses are not
generally understood.
Work flow processes
documented, but only
understood and used by a
core group. The organization
as a whole does not react
properly to the Work Order
Status. No controls over
adding statuses to the
system.
Level III + Controls over
adding Work Order statuses
to the system exist.
Organization as a whole
understands the statuses,
but utilization of the status
codes is not consistent.
Level IV + Work flow is
bound by Work Order Status;
evidence of consistent
compliance is present.
Process mapped and
consistently followed.
Work Order Closeout
When the work is complete,
Work Orders are often left
in an open status for a long
period of time, with little or no
feedback provided.
Work Orders are closed with
some part codes identified.
No coordination delays
recorded. Verbal feedback at
best, but spotty performance.
Work Orders are closed
with part, some problem,
and some reason codes
identified. All coordination
delays greater than 60
minutes recorded. Written
feedback provided on less
than 50% of Work Orders.
Work Orders are closed with
part and problem identified
as well as some reason
codes. All coordination
delays over 30 minutes
recorded. Written feedback
on more than 50% of Work
Orders.
Work Orders are closed with
part, problem, and reason
codes identified. Required
follow-up work is noted. All
Work Orders have some form
of written feedback provided
on same shift.
Backlog Management
and Measurement
Backlog is not measured or
understood.
Backlog is understood and
actual performance is known
by a few select people.
Backlog calculations largely
inaccurate. No reaction to
current performance.
Work Orders have estimated
hours assigned and backlog
is known in total number of
hours. Organization struggles
to do anything with this
information, but it is generally
accurate.
Work Order backlog is
calculated in “crew weeks”.
“Ready to Schedule”
backlog is easily identified.
Appropriate reaction to
backlog calculations by
leaders in the organization.
Level IV + Management
closely monitors backlog
trends to determine proper
staffing and contract labor
needs. Constantly seeking
ways to expand "Ready"
backlog.
Work Order History:
Failure Reporting and
Corrective Action
System (FRACAS)
Failure data is not tracked.
Failure codes exist, but
usage is spotty. Some
craftspersons record them
diligently, most do not.
Failure codes are entered for
most Work Orders, but little
or no data analysis is done.
Poor knowledge of failure
codes.
Level III + Organization
does proper analyses and
understands codes; struggles
with corrective action follow
up.
Level IV + The organization
gains great benefit from
the solutions executed as
a result of the FRACAS
process.
% Planned vs.
Unplanned
0% Planned
100% Unplanned
30% Planned
70% Unplanned
50% Planned
50% Unplanned
70% Planned
30% Unplanned
90% Planned
10% Unplanned
Ready Backlog Unknown or not measured.
Less than 1 week Ready
Backlog.
1 week Ready Backlog. 2 weeks Ready Backlog. 4 weeks Ready Backlog.
Wrench Time Less than 25%. 25 - 35% 35 - 45% 45 - 55% Greater than 55%.
% Estimated vs.
Actual Hours
Unknown or not measured. 50% accuracy. 60% accuracy. 70% accuracy. 80% accuracy.
% Available Labor
Scheduled
Unknown or not measured. 30% 50% 75% 100%
Schedule Compliance Unknown or not measured. Greater than 30%. Greater than 50%. Greater than 70%. Greater than 80%.
METRICS/SCORECARDSMETRICS/SCORECARDSWORKCONTROLWORKCONTROL
LEVEL 1
NOT ENGAGED
LEVEL 1
NOT ENGAGED
LEVEL 2
EXPERIMENTING
LEVEL 2
EXPERIMENTING
LEVEL 4
GOOD PRACTICE
LEVEL 4
GOOD PRACTICE
LEVEL 5
BEST PRACTICE
LEVEL 5
BEST PRACTICE
Ways to Measure Your
Planning and Scheduling, 2
Maturity Matrix
North America • Europe • Latin America • Middle East • Asia-Pacific
GPAllied EMEA
Guldensporenpark 21-Blok C
B-9820 Merelbeke, Belgium
o. +32(0)9.210.17.20
f. +32(0)9.210.17.28
www.gpallied.com
World Headquarters
4200 Faber Place Drive
Charleston, SC 29405
o. 888.335.8276
f. 843.414.5779